INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

546 was assessed. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) sustained the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, however, on merits, the additions were deleted. The Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of additions made by the ld CIT(A) and the assessee is in appeal against the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment order.”\nAccordingly, the proceedings-initiated u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice to above our submissions on\nmerits are as under:\nOn the issues raised by the Ld. CIT in the SCN, u/s 263 of the Act, on\nthe remaining four issues narrated at page 29 of the impugned order, the\nfollowing submissions were made

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A 7. Pooja Vaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

147\nOrder u/s\n143(3)\nOrder u/s\n143(3)\nAuthority issuing\nnotice\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-1,\nJaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nFrom perusal of above, it is evident that the assessment in the present case has\nbeen reopened as well as completed without following provisions of section\n151A, which

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

147\nOrder u/s\n143(3)\nOrder u/s\n143(3)\nAuthority issuing\nnotice\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-1,\nJaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nACIT, Circle-\n1, Jaipur\nFrom perusal of above, it is evident that the assessment in the present case has\nbeen reopened as well as completed without following provisions of section\n151A, which

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

546, 54GA, therefore, the other issues containing in the incriminating material/seized material are not open for the AO for assessment due to the limited scrutiny. Para 3: Regarding satisfaction note, since the satisfaction note was based on the finding as declared by the assessee on its own in the ITR filed for AY 2012-13. Further, AO only compare

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment for the verification and particularly when the issue has already been examined in the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, it appears that impugned reopening proceedings were on the borrowed satisfaction and assumption of the jurisdiction 16 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR to reopen the assessment u/s 147

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee’s group concern i.e. M/s Reliance Corporate IT Park

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

546/- and of Rs.11,75,84,639/- /- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales and undisclosed investment/ expenditure.’’ M/S. S.M. DEVELOPERS ITA NO. 864/JP/2016 - A.Y. 2009-10 ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.5,61,44,663/- made

SMT. MALTI KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment order was quashed. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the assessee for the first time applied for the copy of the reasons on 14.11.2019 i.e. after passing of appellate order by ld. CIT(A), Jaipur and the same was provided by the AO to her on 18.12.2019 and therefore, it is crystal clear on facts

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable